From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: dbench regression in 2.6 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 19:49:46 +0400 Message-ID: <3F58B09A.10008@namesys.com> References: <3F5636F5.4060000@austin.ibm.com> <3F563B3B.6060406@namesys.com> <200309041138.40795.vs@namesys.com> <3F574AEE.7080402@austin.ibm.com> <20030904175853.GB13676@matchmail.com> <3F58AABE.5050800@austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <3F58AABE.5050800@austin.ibm.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Steven Pratt Cc: Mike Fedyk , Vladimir Saveliev , reiserfs-list@namesys.com Steven Pratt wrote: > Mike Fedyk wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote: >> >> >>> Vladimir Saveliev wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> On Wednesday 03 September 2003 23:04, Hans Reiser wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Steven Pratt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Is anyone looking into the dbench multitheaded regression in 2.6 >>>>>> that I reported here a couple of weeks ago? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> Sorry, I was unable to find your report in mail archives. Could >>>> you, please, remind what is the problem? >>>> >>>> I don't see any change in the >>>> >>>> >>>>>> latest trees. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> The problem showed up in 2.6.0-test1, and every kernel since. The >>> problem is that from 2.5.65 (earliest data I have) to 2.5.69 dbench >>> on reiserfs with 16 clients got a throughput of ~200MB/sec. In >>> 2.5.70 through 2.5.75 the score went up to ~280MB/sec, a good >>> thing. But in 2.6.0-test1 the throughput dropped to below 50 >>> MB/sec. Since then it has risen slightly but still at only around >>> 60MB/sec. Single client dbench showed similar, although much less >>> dramatic changes. No other file system exhibited a change in the >>> 2.6.0-test1 kernel so this seems to be unique to reiserfs. >>> >> >> >> Did anything change in the testing at all? Can you try again with your >> current software versions on 2.5.75, and reproduce the higher speeds? >> >> > No, nothing changed in the test setup. Same dbench, same disk, same > distro, just different kernel. > >> Check the diffstat for the test1 release and see if there are any >> reiserfs >> changes... >> > I believe that Oleg already said there were no changes that look like > they would have caused this. More likely the behavior of something > reiser is using changed which is having a bad effect on resierfs. > > Steve > > > Vs discovered we are sleeping more in test0, and he is debugging the sleepometer so he can find out where (2.6.0 broke the sleepometer it seems). -- Hans